The following is an excerpt from Frank Schaeffer’s Patience With God: Faith for People Who Don’t Like Religion (or Atheism)
(Da Capo, 2009).
Ask yourself: What will happen to Rick Warren’s church when Warren dies, leaves, or is thrown out? Will it remain as successful? Are people there for each other and their community? Are they there for Jesus? Or are they there for Rick Warren?
Warren’s message turns out to be less about God than it is about trying to convince his readers to become American-style evangelicals. In other words, to find purpose they have to join the North American individualistic cult of one-stop born-again “salvation” to which Warren belongs. Warren’s Christianity (the leftover residue of the simplistic frontier Protestantism we call “evangelicalism” that broke most connections theological, aesthetic, and liturgical to the historic Christian churches of both the East and West) is not to be confused with what Christians through most of the 2,000-year history of their religion would have recognized as even remotely familiar.
According to traditional Christianity, a person was not “saved” or “lost” in a one-stop magical affirmation of “correct” doctrine, but, rather, the process of salvation was lived out in a community. Salvation was a path toward God, not a you’re-in-or-out event, as in “At two thirty last Wednesday I accepted Jesus.” Just as Hillary Clinton said about child rearing, the process of redemption took a village. Pastors were part of that “village” tradition and were inducted into existing communities of faith. They were not self-made and reinventing the faith according to whim. The heart of worship was sacramental continuity and an unbroken connection to generations that came before.
Bishops and priests came and went, but the Church remained. What the Church provided was a set of tools—liturgical sacramental exercises, things to do to train one to receive God’s love by learning to love others as oneself.
Some members of the Church—East and West—did some very, very nasty things. They oppressed women, killed heretics, started wars, buggered choir boys, persecuted Jews, molested pilgrims, and aided and abetted the institution of slavery. But they usually did get one thing right: Spirituality wasn’t a matter of celebrity leaders who sprang up then faded away. Some terrible celebrity Christian leaders existed, such as the fifteenth century’s nasty, odd, and painting-burning Savonarola of Florence. But celebrities were the exception to an otherwise virtually anonymous pastorate.
Communities built cathedrals over generations. Usually, no one who worked on laying the building’s foundation was around when it was completed. The name of the cathedral was that of the town where it stood (for instance, Chartres Cathedral) or that of a biblical figure (Notre Dame for instance). A few egomaniacal popes (or bishops) aside, churches were not about their leaders but about the people who worshipped in them. There were religious orders in the Roman Catholic Church that bore the names of their founders, such as the Franciscans, but when those orders survived their founders, it was because they were folded into a hierarchical orderly structure. There were egomaniacal “saints” who drew attention to their “holiness” by public displays of self-mortification (the so-called Stylites, or “Pillar-Saints,” ascetics in the Byzantine Empire who stood on pillars preaching, exposed to the elements, while followers gathered around), but they performed their antics outside of churches. Such individualistic displays didn’t penetrate the liturgical practices led by largely anonymous priests.
The North American evangelical/fundamentalist brand of Christianity is the religious version of the American civil religion: consumerist individualism. Today’s “Stylites” are more often found in private jets, but they still have followers who conflate holiness with success American style—in other words, as measured by money, possessions, numbers, and (above all) celebrity status. The consumer picks a pastor based on where the action seems to be: “Wow, you ought to hear our pastor!” Such “churches” are often founded by a man or woman who started them the way other men and women start a restaurant or a movie company. In Warren’s case, he is pastor of a church called Saddleback, but it’s more properly known as “Rick Warren’s church,” just as the Crystal Cathedral came to be known as “Robert Schuller’s church,” and the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association has its founder’s name in the same way as the Ford Motor Company bears the name of its founder.
Atheist or Liar
Media mogul Rupert Murdoch now owns the largest “Christian” publishing company, having bought it out and then folded it into his stable of publishing giants, one of which publishes—that’s right—Rick Warren.
One can’t picture any scenario in which Warren would be thrown off the evangelical/fundamentalist team, other than if he started to officiate at gay weddings. He answers to no one, let alone to a tradition of liturgical practice, or, God forbid, a bishop, that might diminish the go-it-alone individualism (otherwise known as “God’s leading”) of market capitalism with a Jesus twist that works so well for him. Warren makes past evangelical/fundamentalist superstars such as Lewis, Falwell, Schuller, or my dad [Francis Schaeffer] seem insignificant.
Warren’s is star power on an Oprah level. Warren gave the invocation at a president’s inauguration. Warren’s church is huge. He’s the author of the all-time bestselling book ever published in the history of American publishing. God is blessing! Right?
Tags: billy graham, cs lewis, doubt, francis schaeffer, rick warren, rupert murdoch, stylites
The very fact that a preacher can fool others when he or she has so many doubts makes the self-appointed mediator of faith the deepest cynic of all if, that is, he or she doesn’t embrace paradox.
You say this like you know what those people are thinking. How could you know such a thing?
I do not think that this statement is based upon a claim of knowledge of what a particular person is thinking, but upon an assumption that all people have doubts.
One of the phenomena that we have discussed before is the human need for certainty. I believe that humans respond to this need in at least two general ways.
One way is to obtain a view of what is and rigidly hold to that view. These people find comfort and "certainty" in that view. They seek out people who agree with or offer no challenge to that view. They are hostile to those who present challenges in either word or action to their view.
Another way is to find a view and hold to it but reconsider the view when that view is challenged. In this response there is less certainty, but one does not just throw everything out and start over at each challenge. So there is a core set of criteria upon which all other input is assessed.
I believe that these are the two major responses to the need for certainty. The writer is not mind reading, just assuming - and maybe without warrant - that all people basically have common responses and have doubts.
If a person does not have doubts, then they have ceased to accept new information and often contradictory information. Back to those nasty contradictions of which life is full. When one ceases to doubt, one can not hear new input and that includes input from God.
One thing I disagree with in the statement you quoted is the implication that preachers who do what the statement describes, do it with full knowledge and intent. When one stops taking in and dealing with new and often contradictory information they have rationalized that action and may actually believe that they do not have doubts, for in their actions they have reached a perceived level of certainty.
Those are good points, but my question was specifically to Frank. Would he agree with you, or would he have anything else to say.
DO these guys actually answer questions?
I guess not. It was a great line by Frank, but I don't think you can apply it to Rick Warren or anybody else. It only makes sense when someone applies it to themselves, kind of like the response by jnickj6 the former youth minister below. I like to think this is something along the lines of what Frank was thinking when he wrote it even if he doesn't respond.
As a former youth minister, I can say that the quoted statement, for the most part, was true for me. I became so cynical towards the Christian faith--I still am. I was a youth minister in an Evangelical-style church and the Senior minister was nearly maniacal when it came to Biblical interpretation--his own interpretation. He never wavered on the text and viewed any doubt as heresy. I was 19 years old and grew up sheltered and was very naive to how the world really operated. I taught the kids, lead the choir and congregational singing. I even preached from the pulpit, but my messages were of hope and grace, in contrast to the other rubbish. I was also secretly gay; telling nobody and never acting on my feelings. I lived a lie, with a perpetually-fake smile on my face.
The kids under my charge, and sometimes the adults as well, would come to me with their problems and I had to keep a happy face at all times and reassure them that God loved them and that they were ok. I never always believed what I told them, because I had my own doubts and concerns and really had nobody that I could go to. My own faith wasn't enough, at times. I went to the minister when I had concerns about my faith and sexuality. I never "came out" to him, but I told him that I was having "gay thoughts." He assured me that true Christians cannot be gay and if I was a Christian, then I was't gay. He said that I was being demonically influenced. He preached to me, gave me scriptures to read and prayed over me for what seemed like hours. In other words, I was shamed into submission. I finally had to retire my post, leave the church and was branded a heretic and worse by that Minister and his ardent followers. I later heard that he "outed" me from the pulpit,further disgracing me. He also made a point to expose others whom he suspected or knew to be gay, including a local and very prominent Southern Gospel Musician/singer/songwriter, virtually ruining his career. Call me cynical? You becha!
I guess the church is an effecient system for filtering out those who are honest about doubts and promoting those who embrace paradox. It makes sense that this would be the case since from an evolutionary viewpoint, the primary duty of the church is to expand and replicate down through the generations. Of course those in the church would disagree with this, but over time the churches that follow this principle tend to dominate and those who don't tend to disappear.
My Dear friend in Christ, I was recently told to me by a family member that me BEING a homosexual is a sin. My responce to that sibling was that they were pathetically ignorant.
A little history here....This sibling was raised a Catholic as I was. About ten years ago they, after her first husband died of horrific brain cancer, met her second husband who cajoled his way into her heart, money, and mind. Soon enough, she was brought into the fold and became Baptist. Now this did not strike me with any umbrage, I've grown to the point in my life that God doesn't really give a hoot which door you go through. I was taught buy the priests and nuns to respect all others, and to Love thy neighbor as thyself. When I came to live with them in their state about ten years ago, she had this surreptitious design to bring me into her church. I guess their grand design was that they were going to spew select quotes over me using the Bible as some grand grimoire and suddenly perform a miracle and alter my DNA. Nice try on her part, but very saddening. It doesn't work that way my friend. I do not care what these reorientation people would like you to believe.
For what I've heard out of the mouths of these "Christians", is the complete antithesis of all of Christ's message. The disgusting ignorance and bigotry that is espoused and promulgated, would make one run screaming, revolted. Nobody is safe, or a Christian mind you(except them); not even Catholics, mainstream Protestants, gays, Muslims, Jews, and OMG....the L-I-B-E-R-A-L-S!!!
You spoke of grace and hope in your sermons. It sounds to me like you truely have Christ in your heart.
I illustrate another interesting fact, my friend, the King James who financed the rewrite of the bible into the KJV, was the richest homosexual in the civilized world at the time. Something you probably were never taught, eh?
Understand this, there are many homosexuals who are perfect Christians. We were born this way, and we can still carry out God's work. There indeed must be something truely queer about me cause I'm one of those Christians who eschews bigotry, violence, ignorance and PRIDE. I prefer to embrace love, humilty, charity, humanity, and above all God's grace. Yep, I must be a homo allright. In other words...Hold your head up high and present yourself to the rest of the world as the Christian you truly are.
As far as the Warrens, Hortons, Robertsons, Falwells, and all the other "wolves in sheep's clothing"---God is watching!!
Whodat?
God already has the job of Judgement and really doesn't need your help...have a nice day...
Warren is worst than Billy Graham, whose devotion to Nixon revolted me.
Billy Graham is such a wasted life. He is the one American respected by those on the right who could have spoken up as we made our slide into war and torture, and he could have actually got through to some of those people, and made them think, and possibly even brought some of them to repentance for the disasters they helped cause by selling their soul to the party of the rich. He could have done so much good, he could have helped save the nation, but instead he chose to continue being Billy Graham the great American evangelist. Such a waste. And now he is too old, and there is nobody else in a position to do the job.
Mr Reed,
Your judgement of Rev Graham is a bit juvenile, don't you think?? Rev Graham knows he's not perfect and has stated so many times...how perfect are you?? What did you do to "save the nation"? He IS the Great American Evangelist, even in his imperfectness.
The Christian religion has lost its way, and is in need of a saviour. They have allowed conservative beliefs to become their god. It is time to repent of the vanity that has caused hatred of the other. God offers truth to those who can see beyond the alter call that seduces the flock.
Over and over again, I have read the words of Christians who have, with de-scaled eyes, seen the man behind the curtain. Why is the explanation always a human one? 'They are just misguided' or 'they gave in to the temptation of power'. Why is it that supernatural explanations are good enough to provide the hope of heaven, but never invoked to explain error? In other words, what about the Adversary? The Ted Haggards and the George Bush's serve a larger diabolical interest. Who could so disgrace Christianity, who could turn so many away from Jesus as an idiotic, corrupt president or a drug-addled, sexually closeted preacher? Latter-day, political Christianity is not just misguided or confused. IT IS OF THE DEVIL. Can no one smell the sulfur?
Screwtape would be so proud.
I can smell the sulfur! Warren, and the rest of the "Christian Taliban" use it as incense.
Wow! I'm hanging on to that line.
You wrote: "Warren knows that he must park his conscience at the door of his golden cage, or his empire will melt away under the intolerable weight of the gossip of the Church Ladies."
What justification do you have for thinking that women's gossip will end the career of Warren? He's a big man on campus! Surely "gossip" is the least of such a man's worries! If you are of the persuasion that women's influence or the "feminization" of the church is it's downfall then we would know the foundation on which you base this specious claim. But there is no evidence this is true. Why even introduce it? Is Wendy Wright's comment more damaging than Al Mohler's? Why is it when women talk it's gossip, but when men talk it's legitimate gripes? I had enough of this in the evangelical community. I was hoping you'd bring something a little more balanced than that. Sounds like "hating the other" is alive and well in all sects.
This raises the chicken-egg question. The usual view is that evangelicals are bamboozled, bullied and manipulated into promoting the political right agenda by evangelical preachers. The current article suggests that evangelical preachers are telling the people what they want to hear. So where does it start and why?
As far as I can see what's going on is class warfare--something no one wants to talk about especially since the good guys in the Culture War are the upper middle class and the bad guys are the lower classes, who are disproportionately represented in conservative evangelical churches.
Let's be honest. Suppose that the bottom 80% or so of the population, defined in terms of education, occupation, income and wealth (as in a NYTimes survey some time back) disappeared. Suppose the only people left were those who had advanced degrees or BAs from say top 100 colleges--just taking the education criterion as a marker for class. We would then have a permanent liberal Democratic majority. We would have single-payer health care scheme like every other affluent country. We would have gay marriage. We wouldn't have Walmart, or unrestricted access to firearms, or Fox News. We'd have far fewer evangelical churches and they would have no political influence. We would have Sweden!
The lower classes are scared--of crime, violence and terrorism, and of losing the little bit of freedom they have which they believe is threatened by government. The lower classes are resentful--and they have a right to be given the high level of economic inequality in the US and the lack of serious opportunities to better themselves. Because they're insecure economically, because their families are coming apart--they have a higher divorce rate than people who are better off--they hunker down and oppose social changes they imagine will somehow result in more social disruption. Because they're scared they want guns to protect themselves--and prisons, cops, draconian punishment and a big military to fight the bad guys before they get us, as they see it.
They join evangelical churches that support their "values" and promote their political agendas, so the article is right: evangelical preach hatred for the "other" in order to sell themselves to their disproportionately lower class constituency who want these "values" legitimized and promoted. If preachers sent a different message, they'd leave: religious affiliation voluntary--people affiliate with churches that suit them. More interestingly, if the lower classes were better off--if they had more genuine opportunities and were more secure economically, if they had less reason to be scared and resentful, they wouldn't hold these "values" or look to evangelical churches for support. You do not find many conservative evangelicals in good social democratic welfare states with strong social safety nets.
So let's be honest: it's not the "church ladies." (And I too am vexed that sexism is acceptable in a way that racism and elitism aren't). The issue is class. And yes I am an elitist: I'd like to see the lower classes wiped out--BY UPWARD SOCIAL MOBILITY.
These 'wolves in sheeps clothing' should be expounding on the eternal love of our Lord Jesus the Christ. Instead, they use their pulpits as conduits for their political agendas, courting Capital Hill. They amass millions in the name of God, and yet they are the most blaphemous creatures on the Earth.
One of the things I noticed in my own family is that the less money one has the more conservative their faith. My sister married into a low income family that were members of a small town Assembly of God church, (1960's).
My brother-in-law worked hard and earned more money. As they moved up the economic ladder they also moved to less conservative Assembly Churches.
I started looking at this phenomena and found it to be pretty much across the board.
I do not agree with your assertion that the majority of people with post grad education are liberal, in certain disciplines that is true, but engineers and business people are pretty conservative. I agree that the manner of discussion between Liberal and Conservative would be better.
It's not a matter of class, it's mostly a matter of education level. Having said that, I must say that there's exceptions to every rule. My brother is a committed evangelical member of a small mission-centric "home" church group, that isn't involved in the "gymnasium church" scene, but is very receptive to Warren's message. He has a degree in physics, is an engineer, and knows better. But he can't help being compelled to deny evolution, geologic science, etc. I know he's tortured by the struggle to deny things that he knows are valid scientific knowledge, by his insistence on a "literal" interpretation of the bible "as the infallible and complete word of God." I feel sorry for him. Frank Shaeffer is one of the most important persons speaking on religion and the political movement that attempts to pass itself off as religion today. I applaud his courage.
Now Frank's blog is in hard back.
Twice Lewis is mentioned in the article as if he were an earlier manifestation of Rick Warren. OK--what fundamentalists have done with Lewis might fit this description. But Lewis himself? He was a professor at Oxford and a solid layman in the Anglican Church. He was solidly grounded in a matrix of tradition and accountability on his own spiritual/theological terms. Mere Christianity has a bit of a stale flavor to me, and there are some wince inducing racial stereotyping in the Chronicles of Narnia. But what he isn't is some fundamentalist/evangelical guru.
I, too, think it odd to find Lewis' name alongside Warren's.
The former head of Accelerated Christian Education (a fundamentalist home school curriculum provider) described Lewis to me as "universalist". He didn't mean it as a compliment.
Thanks for taking the time to discuss this, I feel strongly about it and love learning more on this topic. If possible, as you gain expertise, would you mind updating your blog with more information? It is extremely helpful for me.
club penguin cheats
Comments closed
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.